HUGUELEY v. WESTBROOKS

No. 09-1181-JDB-egb.

STEPHEN HUGUELEY, Petitioner, v. BRUCE WESTBROOKS, Warden, Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, Respondent.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 535 Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kelley J. Henry, Miscellaneous, represented by Kelley J. Henry , OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER.

Kelley J. Henry, Miscellaneous, represented by Amy Dawn Harwell , OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER.

Stephen Hugueley, Petitioner, represented by Kristen Marie Stanley , FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER & Amy Dawn Harwell , OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER.


AMENDMENT TO ORDER DENYING PETITION, ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH

J. DANIEL BREEN, District Judge.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), the Court amends its Order dated August 3, 2017 (ECF No. 144), to address the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Davila v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 2058 (2017). In Claim L, Petitioner, Stephen Hugueley, alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and argued that he could overcome the procedural default of this claim, relying on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). (See ECF No. 144 at PageID 7835-36.) The Court denied the claim as procedurally defaulted in accordance with Sixth Circuit precedent in Hodges v. Colson, 727 F.3d 517, 531 (6th Cir. —). (Id. at PageID 7836.) However, the Court amends its Order to state that Claim L still should be dismissed as procedurally defaulted because Davila resolved a circuit split and, like the Sixth Circuit, declined to extend the equitable exception in Martinez to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims. Davila, 137 S. Ct. at 2070 ("[W]e do not think equity requires an expansion of the Martinez."). All other issues addressed in the Order denying the petition shall remain as stated.

In its original Order, the Court granted a limited certificate of appealability for Claim L. (ECF No. 144 at PageID 7837.) As the issue raised in Davila has been resolved, the Court denies the certificate of appealability for Claim L and the remaining claims in Hugueley's petition and certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting affidavit in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date of entry of this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases